Actually, the judiciary and journalism share some common traits. Both are intended to be a search for truth – a careful investigation of facts intended to help steer the nation on the right path. At times the work of journalists and judges overlaps as with the recent example of the ‘memogate’ controversy that grew from the claims made in an op-ed that were further publicised by additional news articles. Long before the Supreme Court took notice of the memo, it was a media story.

The most recent development of the memogate saga occurred recently when a British newspaper reported that one overlooked item from Mansoor Ijaz’s claims was that DG ISI Gen Pasha was secretly meeting with Arab leaders in preparation for a coup against the civilian government. ISPR has denied Mansoor Ijaz’s claim, terming the Independent piece “a baseless article”.

While an official denial is to be expected, Geo anchor Hamid Mir who reported on Mansoor Ijaz’s accusation against Gen Pasha reports that he has received death threats for reporting the story.

Dear Friends,

I would like to inform you that I received an SMS message at my blackberry today at 11:47 pm which said “i have not seen a real bastard than you. i wish somebody comes and strip you naked. i hope some Army man has not done real dirty with your dear ones.” This SMS was reaction of my show Capital Talk which was going on at that time on Geo TV in a repeat telecast.

I responded to this SMS and I got another message from the same number again (03335245252). Within few seconds another SMS from 03318175319 declared me a CIA, RAW and MOSSAD agent. I have received these kinds of threatening messages usually from intelligence agencies in the past. When I responded these messages quickly and told them to go court against me they were silent.

These recent threats are related to two recent shows on Geo TV. I discussed a story in The Independent in the UK reported by Omar Warraich on December 14th and raised questions about the political role of DG ISI [Director General of the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate Ahmad Shuja Pasha]. A constitutional petition was filed by [Community Party Chairman] Engineer Jamil Malik on December 19th in the Supreme Court of Pakistan [asking the court to remove Gen. Pasha] and I was included in the petition as one of the respondents. I came to know about this petition in the evening of December 19th. The same evening I discussed the press conference of Baloch leader Attaullah Mengal on my TV show. Mengal criticized Pakistan Army atrocities against Balochis. This show was aired in the evening of December 19th and repeated in the morning of December 20th between 11 and 12.

I am sure that security establishment of Pakistan is once again angry with all those who will raise questions about the political role of Army. If anything bad happens with me or my “dear ones” the security establishment will be responsible.

Hamid Mir

As Pakistan holds the dubious distinction of being ‘deadliest nation for journalists’ two years running, these threats should raise the interest of the Chief Justice as a matter of national interest. But in this most recent case, the issue should be of special interest to the court. The memo case is presently sub judice, which means that any threat against journalists reporting on the case are meant not only to influence journalists, but the outcome of a case also.

Media cannot be considered as independent if it is operating with a gun to its head. Neither can a judiciary be independent if any element is allowed to use threats of violence and death to influence the outcome of a case. How long must Pakistani journalists search for the truth without the protection of the court? And how long will the court allow its own independence to be questioned by ignoring this issue?

Print PDF

In concluding his piece, points to specific proof that the Americans know nothing about Afghanistan.

Before talking to the Taliban and the Haqqanis or taking them head-on with even greater vigour, the US and its allies would need to know more about these groups. As former US and Nato military commander in Afghanistan Gen Stanley McChrystal recently admitted, the US began the Afghan war with a frighteningly simplistic view and still lacked the knowledge to achieve a successful end.

An example of this paucity of knowledge about Afghanistan was on display recently when a picture of the late Afghan mujahideen leader Maulvi Yunis Khalis standing with President Ronald Reagan at the White House in the 1980s was mentioned as that of Jalaluddin Haqqani, who had never visited the US.

Only problem, this error was made not by the American media, but by Pakistani media, including Jang Group’s own Geo TV.

While Rahimullah Yusufzai may be correct “knowing thy enemy should be the first principle for the US prior to undertaking any new step towards making war or pursuing peace”, he accidentally suggests that perhaps we should be taking a look at ourselves also.

Print PDF

We knew it was going to be a special week in Pakistan media when we were treated to a special edition of Hamid Mir talking about whether the Americans were preparing to launch surgical strikes against Pakistan.

Alarmed by the possibility of being caught in an American strike, we began searching for the source of this threat. We were unable to find any American officials making any such threats. If there could be any good reason to invent the threat of surgical strikes, though, Hamid Mir knew just what it was. US pressurisation had finally united the nation. No longer were there any divisions in Pakistan as everyone had joined hands in a shared commitment to ‘Crush America’.

Hamid Mir’s jubilation was shared by his Jang Group colleague Ansar Abbasi who termed US criticism ‘a blessing in disguise for Pakistan‘ and maked a claim identical to Hamid Mir, that anti-Americanism is uniting the nation.

One is indebted to the Yankees for hurling the latest charge sheet against Pakistan at a time when we direly needed unity. It is now for the Pakistani leadership to exploit the American aggression in the best possible manner to eliminate terrorism, suicide bombings and extremism within Pakistan.

Actually, it was not just Jang Group that was convinced that US pressure had united the nation behind Army and ISI, also on Dunya on the same day’s Khari Baat, Mubahshir Luqman, Maleeha Lodhi and Hamid Gul made exactly the same statements.

As the week progressed, media headlines were filled with defiant statements about ‘fierce resistance‘, ‘severe responses‘ and ‘lead walls‘ to protect from the invading Americans. Editorial pages screamed about ‘unity for national defence’ and some media groups even reported ‘Fatwa for Jihad against America’.

Not only was the nation united against American threats, but all media voices reported in unison that the American threats were just a devious scheme to make Pakistan the scapegoat for America’s failure in Afghanistan.

This was reported not only by the guests of Hamid Mir and Mubashir Luqman’s shows above, but by retired brigadiers. And the same line even appeared in such respected publications as Pakistan Observer, where experts like “Dr Raja Muhammad Khan” warned the Americans to ‘accept harsh reality’. Media ‘think tanks’ published warnings to Americans complete with photos of missile tests and the reminder that Pakistan is a nuclear nation that should not be tested.

Recent tensions in US-Pakistan relations have even resurrected Zaid Hamid’s media career as ARY invited him to explain his disappointment in the All Parties Conference failure to declare martial law.

Though media did a commendable job of saying on a united message, in the future their handlers should do a better job of explaining the meaning of the talking points before allowing our respected TV anchor sahibs to make fools of themselves by mistakenly translating ‘scapegoat’ as ‘bhagi hui bakri’. Obviously some of the more famous talking heads may not understand the talking points they’re parroting, but they should at least know the right words to use.

As the week draws to an end, we look back at the headlines and talk shows and the headline in Jang reports that we will now ‘give peace a chance’. And so in the course of seven days, our media invented a war, fought bravely on the front (head)lines, and then quietly resolved the conflict without losing one single soldier. In fact, our media managed this war so effectively that the American media is not even mentioning their defeat.

It’s like the Americans are trying to pretend that there was never a war at all.

Print PDF

نیچے دی گئی ایک کلپ ملاحضہ فرمائیے۔

اس ویڈیو کو دیکھنے کے بعد یہ صاف واضع ھو جاتا ھے کہ کامران خان مصطفہ کمال کی تعریف کرتے نہیں تھکتے اور درمیانہ روی اختیار کرنے کے بجائے ام کیو ایم کی طرف داری کرنا شروع ھو گے۔

جو بات کامران خان صاحب کے روئیے سے پتا چلتی ھے وہ ھے کہ عوام کے جزبات پر کھیلتے ھوئے صرف اپنی ریٹنگ بڑھانہ ایک نہایت گری ھوئی بات ھے اور اینکر حضرات کو وہ سوالات کرنے چاھیں جو کہ اب تک نھیں اٹھائے گئے ھیں۔ جو بات کامران خان صاحب کے روئیے سے پتا چلتی ھے وہ ھے کہ عوام کے جزبات پر کھیلتے ھوئے صرف اپنی ریٹنگ بڑھانہ ایک نہایت گری ھوئی بات ھے اور اینکر حضرات کو وہ سوالات کرنے چاھیں جو کہ اب تک نھیں اٹھائے گئے ھیں۔

کامران خان صاحب سے چند سوالات پاکستان میڈیا واچ بھی کرن چاھے گی۔ کیا انہوں نے اپنے پروگام میں چٹ پٹی مصالحہ دار گپ شپ کے بجائے کبھی مندرجہ ذیل سوالات اٹھائے ھیں۔

1. کیا اس بات کا پتا چلانا ضروری نہیں تھا کہ اسامہ بن لادن پچھلے پانچ سال میں پاکستان میں کیسے موجود تھا بجائے اس کے کہ ملکی خودمختاری کا رونا رویا جائے۔
2. بڑے ناموں والے سیاست دانوں نے اپنے سرکاری یا سیاسی عہدے کیوں چھوڑے۔
3. گورنر پنجاب کا قتل صرف ایک آدمی کے سر پر ھے یا اس کا قصوروار ھمارہ معاشرہ ھے جس نے ان حالات کو پنپنے کی اجازت دی۔
4. پی۔این۔ایس مہران کے حملہ وار آخر کون تھے۔
5. وفاقی وزیر شہباز بھٹی کا قاتل کون ھے اور کیا مسلمان نہ ھونا ھی صرف انہیں قتل کرنے کے لیے جواز کافی ھے۔
6. کیا دھشت گردی کراچی کے بڑھتے ھوئے خراب حالات کی ذمہ دار نھیں ھے۔
7. کیا الطاف حسین اور ذولفقار مرزا صاحبان کی الزام تراشیاں ملک کے حق میں اچھی ھیں۔

کسی بھی اینکر کا  اصل مقصد اپنی رائے نہیں بالکہ اپنے مہمان کی رائے اور پرسپیکٹؤ لینا ھوتا ھے۔ اپنی ذاتی رائے گھول کر عوام کو خبروں کے روپ میں پیش کرنا نا صرف غلط ھے بالکہ ان پروفیشنل بھی۔

اول بات تو یہ دوم یہ کہ کامران خان ایک مشہور اور پرانے اینکر پرسن ھیں۔ انہیں اس بات کا احساس ھونا چاہیے کہ عوام تک ضروری اور سچی خبر پہنچانے کی ذمہ داری ان کے کندھوں پر ھےعوام ٹاک شوز اس لئے دیکھتی ھے تاکہ  اسےاس بات کا علم ھو سکے کہ مسائل کی وجوہات اور ان کے حل کیا ھیں۔۔

Print PDF

Notice that the Lashkar-e-Taiba founder is quick to say, “we are against all sorts of terrorism.” Of course sympathisers will claim that Jamaat-ud-Dawa is but a humble charity organisation. But if this is true, why in his next breath does he claim “we are the A-team of the Army” that is “against US invasions”? And here we thought that SSG was A-team of the Army. What type of charity organisation claims to be militant commandoes?

The important question here, though, is why Geo TV is inviting as its guest Hafiz Saeed who is classified as an international terrorist by the UN and Interpol? Freedom of speech does not mean free microphones, and freedom of media does not mean that Geo is obligated to provide a platform for Hafiz Saeed to spread his views. So why is Geo choosing to do this? Is it declaring an ideological sympathy with militants?

As for PEMRA, a gentle reminder:

PEMRA Code of Conduct for Media Broadcasters/Cable TV Operators states that:

(1) No programme shall be aired which:

(e) is likely to encourage and incite violence or contains anything
against maintenance of law and order or which promotes antinational or anti-state attitudes…

(o) contains material which may be detrimental to Pakistan’s relations
with friendly countries…

Print PDF

EVEN at the best of times it would have seemed unusual for America’s embassy in Islamabad to organise its recent gathering for “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” people. Given the grim state of bilateral relations, the meeting looked downright provocative. Some in Pakistan’s religiously conservative society promptly accused America of conspiring to attack them by spreading outrageously liberal sexual views. One Islamic political party called it “cultural terrorism”.

And here is the opening paragraph from Sana Bucha’s opinion piece of 17 July in The News (Jang Group):

Even at the best of times between Pakistan and the US it would seem unusual for the latter’s embassy in Islamabad to organise a recent gathering for homosexuals. While some in the country accused the US of conspiring to contaminate our so-called conservative society, another political party dismissed this vulgarity as “cultural terrorism”. As if this was not damaging enough to the relationship, Washington also decided to hold back on Pakistan’s military aid amounting to 800 million dollars. India gloated, but a sulk set in powerful quarters of Islamabad.

Look familiar? No, Sana Bucha has not started writing for The Economist. But she has found herself in the spotlight lately as allegations are breaking that she has plagiarised from the British newspaper, trying to pass off someone else’s work as her own.

It should also be noted that Sana Bucha was one of 20 journalists invited to a secret briefing by ISPR following the Abbottabad fiasco. As Adnoon Farooq notes in his column for Viewpoint, this points to lack of professional ethics.

These journalists and anchorpersons may find no moral dilemma in attending the ISPR briefings. However, it is not a professional routine in line with journalistic ethics to attend a ‘briefing’ on such a vital issue as Abbottabad operation against Osama bin Laden, an event making global headlines, and hide it from their audiences.

The point of this post is not to demonize Sana Bucha. She was not the only journalist attending secret ISPR briefings, and she is not the only journalist at Jang Group to face allegations of plagiaraism.

In May of this year, Geo was caught apparently plagiarising an AFP article and removing references to the original media group so that it would not be noticed. One month earlier in April, The News (Jang Group) appeared to have plagiarised an article by a former CIA agent.

The question must be asked whether there a lack of professional ethics at Jang Group that has allowed a culture of plagiarism to grow at the media giant? This question is vital because it gets to a point far more important than whether Jang employees are stealing from other media groups which is why aren’t Jang reporters doing their own research? Why are they relying on talking points from government agencies and pieces in foreign media?

When people pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV, they expect that the journalist they are reading or listening to will be telling them information that they have researched and verified themselves, not just parroting what they have heard somewhere else. One is professional journalism. The other is just gossip. Does Jang Group know the difference?

Print PDF

‘In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged-or failed to emerge’.
The Military Spokesman further said: “if the newspaper continues with its vilifying campaign without any concrete evidence, I am afraid at some point it may end up expressing its deep regret the way it did in the case of its Iraq coverage.

Pakistan Media Watch agrees with DG ISPR that it is unacceptable for media groups to allow controversial and questionable information that is insufficiently qualified to stand unchallenged. We further agree that concrete evidence is a necessary requirement of proper reporting.

Pakistan Media Watch looks forward to our own media adopting this same standard.

Print PDF

You will please recall that a sympathetic piece was published in Daily Jang following the death of Osama bin Laden.

Now let us look at another profile in the same newspaper. Abid Shah interviews Ilyas Kashmiri’s brother for an article titled, lyas Kashmiri Tahaffuz-e-Pakistan aur Azadi-e-Kashmir kay liye masroof raha, bhai Chaudhry Asghar.

According to Jang Group reporter Mazhar Tufail “there are clear signs of the involvement of Ilyas Kashmiri group in the terrorism incident at the naval base, PNS Mehran” as well as GHQ. The reporter wrote that “Ilyas Kashmiri group has been playing an important role in planning attacks on Pakistan’s defence system and institutions”. In Jang Group‘s English newspaper, Hamid Mir terms Ilyas Kashmiri as “one of the most dangerous threats for the security of not only Pakistan but the whole of South Asia”.

So why then does Jang Group follow these reports by going to Kashmiri’s village to ask his family for their opinion? What could the editors expect except for a sympathetic report?

The question must be asked why is Jang Group projecting militants who attack the nation’s defence as pro-Pakistan? As the nation continues to suffer terrorist attacks, a major media group is characterising a jihadi leader as “patriot of the highest degree”.

One possibility is that Jang Group is projecting extremism and anti-Americanism as a cynical strategy to sell newspapers. According to a recently revealed Wikileaks document, this has been an admitted scheme of Jang Group employees.

12. The problem of reporting rumor, innuendo, and unsubstantiated allegations is bad enough when limited to the distribution numbers of “Jang” daily or “The News.” However, it is when these stories are amplified by the “GEO TV Network” that the truly negative influence expands to substantial numbers. And all of this by their own admission is calculated to maintain or increase their market share.

13. On a recent visit to “GEO TV Network” offices in Karachi, our IO had a conversation putting all of this into context. “GEO” sees its behavior as win-win with sensationalism and hate speech generating ratings and any attempt by authorities to rein it in allowing them to exploit their circumstance by claiming censorship.;

The question must be asked, is Jang Group publishing these articles out of ideological sympathy for terrorists, or are they projecting extremism and hate speech as a scheme make money? The people have the right to know.

Print PDF

Additional evidence has surfaced supporting the belief that Jang Group is playing politics with Geo Super. As you will recall, Jang Group has claimed that transmission of the sports channel was shut down by the government. This claim was first called into question by the blog Cafe Pyala.

Almost everyone would have seen this image where Geo Super used to be. Does this mean PEMRA has pulled Geo Super off air? That’s what the Jang Group would have you believe. But think about something: if the channel were actually blocked, why would you be able to see this image? Remember when Geo and other news channels were pulled off air during the 2007 ‘Emergency’? The screens actually went blank. In fact, what this constant image indicates is that Geo Super is still broadcasting and being distributed on cable and satellite dishes. It is just that the channel itself is not running any programming.

Following additional research, Pakistan Media Watch found evidence that actually Jang Group had stopped broadcasting programming themselves in order to extort a domestic uplink license from the government without following proper procedures.

The story that is unfolding appears to expose a disturbing possibility – that a media group, confident in its ability to sway public opinion, is attempting to pressurise government agencies and the courts to grant it special privileges. Such a scheme would not be necessary to ensure programming reaches the people, rather it would be a direct assault on the authority of the government and the courts and a power grab by media owners.

Just as the government should not interfere with media, media should not attempt to interfere with government also. This story should be watched closely as it appears there could be more to what is going on than is being truthfully reported.

Thanks to the documents revealed by Wikileaks, additional evidence has surfaced which suggests that Jang Group intentionally stops programming in order to gain sympathy from the public and pressurise the government.

On November 17, 2008, “GEO TV” suddenly disappeared from the  airwaves in Karachi.  The blackout lasted about six hours.  A senior “GEO” staffer told our senior information LES that the stoppage was  a result of pressure being applied by one of the political parties  due to “GEO” not airing a speech by one of its politicians.  Post  found out subsequently that another “GEO” official disclosed to an  officer of a European diplomatic mission that they had taken  themselves off the air in order to blame the political party, and  garner support for the station.

As the judiciary determines whether or not PEMRA has not moved forward with the request for a license for Geo Super in order to pressurise Jang Group, perhaps it would also be worth determining whether or not Jang Group has been involved in a pattern of actions intended to deceive the public and pressurise the government also. In no case do two wrongs make it right, and neither PEMRA nor Jang Group should use their resources to pressurise the other. Rather media and regulators both should operate in a fair and transparent matter.

Print PDF

The source, speaking through his tears, makes wild claims about not only infiltrators in the military but plans to attack an American airline also. His claims don’t make any sense, but rather than ask questions that might help determine if he is telling the truth, Hamid Mir suggests how the source might change his story to make it more believable. He actually helps his source invent his story while he’s speaking!

When the show cuts back, Hamid Mir pleads for protection for the young man implying that as thin as his sources story is, we should believe it.

Actually, we shouldn’t believe it. In less than two days, the source appeared on Waqt TV saying he made the whole thing up to get revenge over a love dispute.

The man who made sensational claims about the PNS Mehran base attack has turned out to be a disparate lover who fabricated the story just to revenge his failure in marrying a sister of an army man. Muhammad Junaid in an interview with Waqt News confessed that he had nothing to do with the Karachi naval base attack. “I am not a witness to it and totally unaware of the facts about it,” he said.

This is a classic example of unprofessionalism and poor reporting. Rather than investigate and ask tough questions to get to the bottom of the story, Hamid Mir appears to help the young man with his lies. Despite the fact that the man presented no evidence, Hamid Mir accepts his story without question and broadcasts the interview on television even requesting security for the man.

Muhammad Junaid claims that he made the whole thing up to get revenge in a love dispute. What is Hamid Mir’s excuse?

Print PDF